Since I came to programming after the days of Forth and Lisp being
prominent languages, I can't dispute nor concur with her statement.  How
would you respond?

First, a bit of advice that convinced me to go with Perl 6 not only
philosophically, but practically too.

Go here:

This page is in Russian, but you just need the links with names of
programming languages at the bottom.

This is the website of Art. Lebedev studio, famous internationally for
the (yet-unreleased) Optimus keyboard and famous in Russia for
designing ace websites. On their website they also have a tool called
"Typograf" for improving the typesetting of plain text and HTML. And
they offer a webservice for it too. The links at the bottom of the
page show examples of code  for accessing the webservice in different
programming languages.

I was pleasantly surprised to see both Perl and Perl 6 there. When i
compared the two pieces of code, i was just stunned.

This code is practical. Hey, it's webservices!  For those vanilla
webservices the Perl 6 code was perfectly readable and cleaner than
its Perl 5 counterpart. And what's most important, *it was still
Perl*. Just cleaner and updated for 2006.

So there. Show that to your stubborn coworkers. The first sentence in
the Camel book can stay the same: Perl 6 is still a language to get
your job done and i believe that most of the time their job will be to
program webservices and not lazy-evaluated arrays or thread-safe
hyper-junctions. And when they will want to do that, they will be able

Now about some philosophy ... I mostly second Fagyal - and please see below ...

On 29/08/06, Fagyal Csongor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Perl5 is hard to read, and so will Perl6 be. That (mostly) comes form
the gazillion tons of syntax sugar we have, and from the lots of

Syntactic sugar and DWIMmery is good, when it's done well.

In Perl 5 it is done quite well. In Perl 6 it is potentially even better.

No one *has* to use, or for that matter, learn about the
hyper-fatarrow (see

It would be clever on behalf of documentation writers (i am gradually
trying to become one) to update perlop and perlsyn in such a way that
all the new and smart operators won't scare people away.

And the Perl 6 edition of the Llama book doesn't even have to mention
them until some very late chapter, if at all.

So yes, your coworkers are partially right, at least IMHO:
Perl6 syntax is way overloaded, and that can give you some headache. I
do not like the unicode operators, either, for example.

Read Larry's talk about Perl 5 and Perl 6 in Israeli OSDC 2006 ( see ).

Try to listen to it too. He talks about Unicode in the part about
hyper-operators and tries to avoid the inevitable question - "how do
you type it". His explanation is simple, but just right. The world
moves on, why shouldn't Perl?

However, a par excellence programmer, who actually *writes* code, might
never experience issues like this. I mean you do not have to use what
you do not need to use.

You have the ability to be expressive. You don't have if you don't
want to. There's always C to go back to.

How many here know, for example, the exact
syntax in Perl5 regex for, say, "zero-width look behind assertion" do that
without looking it up in the man pages? :)


I didn't cheat. I actually used it yesterday.

And it changes in P6, although i'm not so sure to what exactly. Is it <?after> ?

Perl5 is like three languages
combined into one. Perl6 is like 5 languages combined.

Yet again, i'll quote Larry: All your paradigms are belong to us.
And i'll add: But you can still write one-liners.

And you can still get your job done.

Amir Elisha Aharoni,
"We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace." - Thurston Moore
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments

Reply via email to